By Brattleboro Reformer EditorialPublished April 8th 2008 in Brattleboro Reformer

To the surprise of no one, Gov. James Douglas vetoed two election reform
bills late Friday afternoon.

Douglas rejected a bill that would have set new campaign finance limits
and another that would have allowed instant runoff voting for Vermont
congressional elections with three or more candidates.

It was not surprising because the Republican Party has never been
interested in any measure that would break the stranglehold of big money
in politics. Nor has the Republican Party been interested in any measure
that would give third parties a chance.

We'll leave aside campaign finance reform for now, since that bill never
really stood a chance. As long as the U.S. Supreme Court equates money
with political speech, it's difficult for any change to the current
system to pass judicial scrutiny.

There are no excuses, however, for Douglas to veto instant runoff voting
(IRV), which allows voters to rank the candidates in an election race
based on preference.

IRV is not complicated. When votes are cast, all votes applied to the
first choices on the ballot are tabulated and the candidate with the most
votes wins.

If no candidate receives a majority of the votes, the candidate receiving
the fewest votes is eliminated and a "runoff" tabulation
begins. In the runoff, your vote still goes to the candidate you ranked
first on your ballot, unless that candidate was eliminated. In that case,
your vote goes to your second choice on the ballot.

This system of eliminating the lowest candidate and recounting the votes
continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes. Each time,
your vote is applied to the candidate you ranked highest who still in the
running.

The main appeal of IRV is that it allows voters to give their support to
a candidate they like best, even if that candidate has no chance of
winning, without the fear that they are throwing their vote away or
taking support away from a more popular candidate. Your ballot counts
even after your favorite candidate is eliminated, so every voter has a
say in the process.

So, why is there so much resistance to this simple idea?

For starters, the Republicans don't want to see anything that improves
the chances of third parties to succeed. IRV would instantly eliminate
the whole "spoiler" scenario that cripples voters who want to
vote for a Progressive, Liberty Union or independent candidate, but are
afraid to do because it would increase the chances of seeing a candidate
they don't want to win get elected.

There are others that say it is too complicated and would confuse voters.
Burlington used IRV in its last mayoral election in 2006, and it worked
smoothly. Other cities around the country have used IRV without
incident.

In a state like Vermont, where third parties are an established part of
the political landscape, and voters are used to casting their ballots for
candidates outside the major parties, instant runoff voting is a sensible
idea.

Unfortunately, Douglas doesn't agree and there don't seem to be enough
votes to override his veto.

We think Douglas is wrong. We think IRV should be used, not just for
congressional races, but for every election at the local and state level
in Vermont. Imagine how, say, the Brattleboro Selectboard election might
have turned out this year if IRV was in place?

Instant runoff voting strengthens third parties. It eliminates the risk
of additional candidates in a race undermining support for the most
popular candidate. It allows the will of a majority of voters to be
reflected at the polls, no matter how many candidates are running. What's
not to like?